Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: goldstategop

But if you accept human life as sacred, doesn’t that automatically preclude the death penalty? If all human life is sacrosanct and that sacrosanctness stems from that life having been infused with the ‘Divine Essence’, doesn’t that mean that only God could ever choose to rescind it? If only God can rescind his Divine Essence, then any killing of a human person for any reason would be a violation of that persons sacredness.

One could go to the Bible and find that God has directed that in the case of Murder we are allowed to take a human life:
Exodus 21:12, He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

But that same chapter of Exodus also contains:
Exodus 21:22, If men stirve, and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

This seems to be indicating that the taking of a life, deemed sacred, is to be punished with death, but that the killing of an unborn child should be punished in a financial manner. It reads as though God is declaring there to be a difference between a living person and an unborn child.

Am I wrong to read this into the Bible?


96 posted on 11/04/2007 12:50:45 PM PST by 49th (this space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: 49th; goldstategop
" Exodus 21:22, If men stirve, and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

The phrase "and yet no mischief follow" means "if there is no further injury."

What this means is that if the baby is born ("and her fruit depart from her") but otherwise uninjured --- that is, a premature birth where there is no harm to the baby --- a fine must be paid for causing the premture birth. But if the baby showed any further injury, the penalty is eye for eye, life for life, and so forth.

This is clearly a verse recognizing the human status of the baby, and prescribing penlties accordingly.

It's very important to remember that the Old Testament is not the "last word" on God's Law. Far from it: revelation is gradual and progressive. The whole intent of God is not found in one or another proof-text; and many ambiguities are cleared up in the New Testament. For instance, in Luke 1 you have one unborn baby (you can call him John the Fetus) leaping in the womb in response to another unborn baby (Jesus the Embryo.)

John is not only a human person, but a disciple while still in the womb; and Jesus, as a very young embryo, is not just human but "Lord."

107 posted on 11/04/2007 1:18:41 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (C'est la Vie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson